Alt-Right Style of Arguing* (name change)

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
User avatar
Some Schmo
God
Posts: 2466
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:21 am

Re: Best ajax explanation I've heard so far

Post by Some Schmo »

canpakes wrote:
Mon Aug 15, 2022 7:57 pm
Some Schmo wrote:
Mon Aug 15, 2022 7:31 pm

But the only people who would recognize that are the people who already see the point in the first place. Nobody is convinced by this.
I get that. But, as Xeno notes, the interaction isn’t necessarily designed to sway the person being questioned so much as the folks reading on the sidelines.
Here's one talking about the effect all of this has on "folks reading on the sidelines."

tl;dr I've often considered the "onlooker" argument a decent point, but it's not as effective to onlookers as you might think.

I've got to say, this series of videos feels like the topics were researched here at DiscussMormonism (and I recognize that this forum is actually a tame example).
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.

The god idea is popular with desperate people.
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 7062
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am

Re: Best ajax explanation I've heard so far

Post by canpakes »

Binger wrote:
Mon Aug 15, 2022 8:12 pm
canpakes wrote:
Mon Aug 15, 2022 7:57 pm


I get that. But, as Xeno notes, the interaction isn’t necessarily designed to sway the person being questioned so much as the folks reading from the sidelines.
That is not what Xeno noted.
Not exactly all parts. I’m referring to the ‘rippled out’ portion.
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 7062
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am

Re: Best ajax explanation I've heard so far

Post by canpakes »

Some Schmo wrote:
Mon Aug 15, 2022 8:14 pm
tl;dr I've often considered the "onlooker" argument a decent point, but it's not as effective to onlookers as you might think.
Absolutely true. But I still see it as worth the effort, even if I can’t confirm a count of how many minds were changed … if any.
: )

Another aspect of this is that penning an argument (response) helps the author to re-examine their own stand. This can lead to new perspectives even before the ‘post’ button is hit. That’s a benefit, as I see it, to myself.

Similarly, I believe that’s why some folks don’t engage when you ask questions. Theres a possibility that they’ve rooted their beliefs on shaky foundations, and they’re not ready to challenge their conclusions. So the conversation is one-sided, but might still prompt onlookers to do a bit of their own research.
User avatar
Some Schmo
God
Posts: 2466
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:21 am

Re: Best ajax explanation I've heard so far

Post by Some Schmo »

Xenophon wrote:
Mon Aug 15, 2022 7:44 pm
I'd put a pretty penny down that folks here don't actually think they can fundamentally change pretty much any poster here. But we've seen others shift their opinions over the years and a lot of that stemmed from conversations with folks that maybe didn't change and rippled out from there. I think the board would lose quite a bit of value if those folks who disagreed didn't do so for us all to see.
I agree that the conversations can be valuable to rational people. The problem is that they are valuable to irrational people as well, in terms of understanding rhetorical gimmicks and strategies that only give the appearance of "winning."

by the way, that seems to be another salient point one of these videos made, which is that "debate" has different aims for different people. For the enlightened, the point is to make progress. For bad faith arguers, the point is to obfuscate and annoy.

I love a good conversation with someone who disagrees with me but is moved by rational points made. I see no point in conversation with people who have a history of being immovable; if someone comes to the table in bad faith, they are not worth conversation. They don't deserve it. You don't pull people to your level by hanging out at theirs.
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.

The god idea is popular with desperate people.
Binger
God
Posts: 6133
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am
Location: That's the difference. I actually have a Blue Heeler

Re: Best ajax explanation I've heard so far

Post by Binger »

Some Schmo wrote:
Mon Aug 15, 2022 8:33 pm
Xenophon wrote:
Mon Aug 15, 2022 7:44 pm
I'd put a pretty penny down that folks here don't actually think they can fundamentally change pretty much any poster here. But we've seen others shift their opinions over the years and a lot of that stemmed from conversations with folks that maybe didn't change and rippled out from there. I think the board would lose quite a bit of value if those folks who disagreed didn't do so for us all to see.
I agree that the conversations can be valuable to rational people. The problem is that they are valuable to irrational people as well, in terms of understanding rhetorical gimmicks and strategies that only give the appearance of "winning."

by the way, that seems to be another salient point one of these videos made, which is that "debate" has different aims for different people. For the enlightened, the point is to make progress. For bad faith arguers, the point is to obfuscate and annoy.

I love a good conversation with someone who disagrees with me but is moved by rational points made. I see no point in conversation with people who have a history of being immovable; if someone comes to the table in bad faith, they are not worth conversation. They don't deserve it. You don't pull people to your level by hanging out at theirs.
Schmo, who occupies the high level? You?
User avatar
Some Schmo
God
Posts: 2466
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:21 am

Re: Best ajax explanation I've heard so far

Post by Some Schmo »

canpakes wrote:
Mon Aug 15, 2022 8:25 pm
Another aspect of this is that penning an argument (response) helps the author to re-examine their own stand. This can lead to new perspectives even before the ‘post’ button is hit. That’s a benefit, as I see it, to myself.
This is the best (if not the only) reason to do it.
canpakes wrote:
Mon Aug 15, 2022 8:25 pm
Similarly, I believe that’s why some folks don’t engage when you ask questions. Theres a possibility that they’ve rooted their beliefs on shaky foundations, and they’re not ready to challenge their conclusions. So the conversation is one-sided, but might still prompt onlookers to do a bit of their own research.
I believe they don't answer questions because their original point wasn't made seriously in the first place. They weren't looking for an education or a discussion, they were looking for a fight. You'll notice that a lot of the things they say are short, hyperbolic sound-bytes wrapped in incendiary language. They don't set up arguments and defend them point by point. They make an ignorant, easy-to-refute assertion designed to get thoughtful people to react.

I think the assumption you made above can be reserved for people who have a history of updating their opinions with new information.
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.

The god idea is popular with desperate people.
User avatar
Xenophon
Savior (resurrected state)
Posts: 998
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 12:29 pm

Re: Best ajax explanation I've heard so far

Post by Xenophon »

Some Schmo wrote:
Mon Aug 15, 2022 8:33 pm
I agree that the conversations can be valuable to rational people. The problem is that they are valuable to irrational people as well, in terms of understanding rhetorical gimmicks and strategies that only give the appearance of "winning."

by the way, that seems to be another salient point one of these videos made, which is that "debate" has different aims for different people. For the enlightened, the point is to make progress. For bad faith arguers, the point is to obfuscate and annoy.

I love a good conversation with someone who disagrees with me but is moved by rational points made. I see no point in conversation with people who have a history of being immovable; if someone comes to the table in bad faith, they are not worth conversation. They don't deserve it. You don't pull people to your level by hanging out at theirs.
If their logic is really that bad I doubt "showing" them some rhetorical methods for arguing will be all that helpful to their cause. I've met some very uneducated folks who still have a very firm grasp of the obvious(hell, I'm likely one of the least educated here), I don't suspect they'll get another one over on someone because they learned a new debate tactic here.

Your posts in this thread also read a bit as attempting to put your perspective onto all the other posters here, intentional or not. I fully acknowledge that you don't value in engaging posters that are deeply entrenched but I think plenty of folks do. I think if there wasn't some value in the clashing of ideas, even deeply held ones, this board would have died off long ago. You've mentioned this is a venting place for yourself which I think is a reasonable use of the board, even if I don't use it that way. Just because I don't personally find value in the way you leverage the board doesn't inherently make your method wrong.

Perhaps some folks here push back on other posters because they can't do the same thing with in real life friends or relatives. Subgenius held many of the same positions as my father and so it was a bit cathartic getting to spar with him from time to time. I'd imagine some of the reason MG gets as much flak as he does is because he is a digital manifestation of a lot of things people don't like about the LDS church. Free of name and face folks are allowed to let their hair down here and voice concerns they might otherwise not.

Also, I just don't see you convincing me that engaging with people stubbornly entrenched ideas shouldn't be done. :D :lol:
He/Him

“If you consider what are called the virtues in mankind, you will find their growth is assisted by education and cultivation.”
― Xenophon
User avatar
MeDotOrg
2nd Quorum of 70
Posts: 686
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2020 9:55 pm
Location: San Francisco

Re: Best ajax explanation I've heard so far

Post by MeDotOrg »

I think it is really counterproductive to call someone stupid. IF this country is to have a chance of working, I think establishing a dialogue with people who disagree with you is essential.

And to that end, I applaud Ajax for at least coming forward and stating his opinions when he knows there's a good chance he is going to be mocked or ridiculed.

I start with a simple premise: What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Laws and principles should apply equally, with no expectation of political favor. Ajax sees that in American history, this is the first time an Ex-President's residence has been served with a Search Warrant. Does that mean it was executed for the purpose of bringing down the GOP's front-runner for 2024? He thinks so.

There have been other oppositional voices on the board that have just been angry and cruel. That's not my experience of Ajax. But a BBS without disagreement is like an AA meeting where everyone has been sober for 20 years. It's boring.

There is also a group dynamic (of which I have been guilty) of not wanting to be the nail that sticks out. Have you ever avoided thinking about areas of your political view with which you are not entirely comfortable because you fear the judgement of the group? Those are the types of questions that someone who perceives themselves outside the group can ask more easily.

In short, opposition helps keeps you honest, and keeps things stimulating.
The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization.
- Will Durant
"Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist."
- Edwin Land
User avatar
Some Schmo
God
Posts: 2466
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:21 am

Re: Best ajax explanation I've heard so far

Post by Some Schmo »

Xenophon wrote:
Mon Aug 15, 2022 9:05 pm
Some Schmo wrote:
Mon Aug 15, 2022 8:33 pm
I agree that the conversations can be valuable to rational people. The problem is that they are valuable to irrational people as well, in terms of understanding rhetorical gimmicks and strategies that only give the appearance of "winning."

by the way, that seems to be another salient point one of these videos made, which is that "debate" has different aims for different people. For the enlightened, the point is to make progress. For bad faith arguers, the point is to obfuscate and annoy.

I love a good conversation with someone who disagrees with me but is moved by rational points made. I see no point in conversation with people who have a history of being immovable; if someone comes to the table in bad faith, they are not worth conversation. They don't deserve it. You don't pull people to your level by hanging out at theirs.
If their logic is really that bad I doubt "showing" them some rhetorical methods for arguing will be all that helpful to their cause. I've met some very uneducated folks who still have a very firm grasp of the obvious(hell, I'm likely one of the least educated here), I don't suspect they'll get another one over on someone because they learned a new debate tactic here.

Your posts in this thread also read a bit as attempting to put your perspective onto all the other posters here, intentional or not. I fully acknowledge that you don't value in engaging posters that are deeply entrenched but I think plenty of folks do. I think if there wasn't some value in the clashing of ideas, even deeply held ones, this board would have died off long ago. You've mentioned this is a venting place for yourself which I think is a reasonable use of the board, even if I don't use it that way. Just because I don't personally find value in the way you leverage the board doesn't inherently make your method wrong.

Perhaps some folks here push back on other posters because they can't do the same thing with in real life friends or relatives. Subgenius held many of the same positions as my father and so it was a bit cathartic getting to spar with him from time to time. I'd imagine some of the reason MG gets as much flak as he does is because he is a digital manifestation of a lot of things people don't like about the LDS church. Free of name and face folks are allowed to let their hair down here and voice concerns they might otherwise not.
All fair points. I have minor, tangential disagreements but none really worth mentioning.
Also, I just don't see you convincing me that engaging with people stubbornly entrenched ideas shouldn't be done. :D :lol:
That was awesome. I appreciate the laugh.
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.

The god idea is popular with desperate people.
User avatar
Some Schmo
God
Posts: 2466
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:21 am

Re: Best ajax explanation I've heard so far

Post by Some Schmo »

MeDotOrg wrote:
Mon Aug 15, 2022 9:14 pm
I think it is really counterproductive to call someone stupid. IF this country is to have a chance of working, I think establishing a dialogue with people who disagree with you is essential.

And to that end, I applaud Ajax for at least coming forward and stating his opinions when he knows there's a good chance he is going to be mocked or ridiculed.

I start with a simple premise: What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Laws and principles should apply equally, with no expectation of political favor. Ajax sees that in American history, this is the first time an Ex-President's residence has been served with a Search Warrant. Does that mean it was executed for the purpose of bringing down the GOP's front-runner for 2024? He thinks so.

There have been other oppositional voices on the board that have just been angry and cruel. That's not my experience of Ajax. But a BBS without disagreement is like an AA meeting where everyone has been sober for 20 years. It's boring.

There is also a group dynamic (of which I have been guilty) of not wanting to be the nail that sticks out. Have you ever avoided thinking about areas of your political view with which you are not entirely comfortable because you fear the judgement of the group? Those are the types of questions that someone who perceives themselves outside the group can ask more easily.

In short, opposition helps keeps you honest, and keeps things stimulating.
I agree with all of this, but I think we're talking about different people. Also, I think ajax may have fooled you in the same way I was fooled for years. Yes, he often gives the appearance of being reasonable... until you unpack everything he says, and take note of the flow of any conversation had with him.

I don't hate ajax; I don't really know him, and I think that's intentional on his part. It's obviously more accurate to say "what he writes is stupid" than "ajax is stupid" because I don't really know if the real ajax is stupid. My judgment is based on what he writes. Maybe he sucks as a writer. Maybe he's this brilliant dude who's been stringing everyone along for years. There have been plenty of times I've agreed with the spirit of what he's said, which is why he avoided my ignore list for so long. I do, however, hate the way he "discusses" things, and eventually, I had to give up on the hope for ajax in favor of the reality of ajax's posts.

There's a huge difference between attempting to come together with people who want consensus and those who simply don't. And that is why I'm pessimistic about this country (and the world at large) ever "working." When I say someone said something stupid, I'm being descriptive, not prescriptive.
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.

The god idea is popular with desperate people.
Post Reply